click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20121224
20130101
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)
's very interested in religion, he's very interested in faith. and even though he did not remain a mormon for his entire life -- it was just as a child, he returned to the catholic church -- it will always be a part of this sort of complex faith journey as he calls it religion's complicated, and his religious story is complicated too. not just because of catholicism and mormonism, but also because he attends a protestant/evangelical church that his wife and her family have participated in. so he's dabbled with a lot of religious practices. >> host: does he attend church today, and if so, where? >> guest: he says he attends catholic mass every sickle day -- >> host: down which -- >> guest: yeah. there's a catholic church just a few steps away from his office, and very easy to get to from him. but when he's here in miami, he lives in west miami, a suburb of miami proper, he attends another church called christ fellowship, and that is an evangelical/protestant-based faith which is a part of the southern baptist convention. >> host: is it a megachurch? >> guest: the it's a big church, somewhe
pretty much believed everything they taught me as far as religion and jesus christ but i was into reading and i liked to read and started getting into history and i discovered a lot of real history didn't reconcile with the bible. so the question is, i discovered a series of books that mentions -- suggests perhaps that there really was no jesus christ, in the historical record, actually starts almost two centuries after this character appeared, and it could possibly be something that was -- i mean, that invention, but how do you address the fact that, for 200 years or so, before there was writing about this, nothing appears no letters from anybody no graffiti, no correspondence between ain't spent people and why does ever when we put this book together i left out all religious figures. i don't want it to be a battle over religion. so much good and bad can come out of religion. but i think it's amazing how much we can agree on, and i felt like i didn't want to put out there something that people could consecutive agree on, so there's no politics, religion, my dodd is better than your god.
nihilism or atheism. the first amendment, congress shall make no law to establish religion or their free exercise thereof. in other words, stay out of it. obviously it assumes -- and there is god. we knew what the religions were. the baptist conventions, they weren't like worshiping a pope. they believed in god. i'm not going to revise history. i grew up in a religious environment and i'm proud of it. i am proud of it but i thank god i believe in god or i would probably be enormously angry right now. so they i am grateful and unapologetic. >> one interesting sort of -- it is remarkable when we started talking a little bit about how the sub by this change over time and we could have could've also edit the 19th amendment, women becoming part of this ever greater ark of democratic inclusion. >> and prohibition. i will drink to that. [laughter] >> but that was repealed. in general most of the amendments, as you said before, maybe more perfect. >> or less perfect perk is. >> but then we got rid of it. >> i don't drink so i understand. [laughter] >> on revision is pretty extraordinary, the con
of religion with the added security argue the application of organized violence because they often forget that fact. the non-westerners often do, so he says it is justifiable that we can have this policy towards iraq even though half a million children have died and clinton passes the laws that basically gives the opportunity for bush to go further after with the invasion of iraq so we see the continuum, that is a part of the point that we are making. it is and democrats versus republicans we see it with the lines running you can see 1846 with mexico but we are choosing from 1899 up through iraq and afghanistan and yemen. >> it is a way of life, so in some ways -- >> we're standing on the shoulders of a lot of great americans and it's not really the diversity offices. some are told in the public schools and it is untold to the popular audience and people that get their history from television and so that is what we try to challenge the they don't know much history and they say that there were some at understanding u.s. history than they are understanding the math and science with to this
to the abolitionists, and so their attitude was you want us to study your language and religion, we'll do it, but at the same time, we're going to invest on our own io deppedty as the mendi people. you could say that their african identity grew as a counterpoint to the idea that they should be civilized pie yous christians. now, all of these tensions were on displace because once the supreme court ruled in their favor and said they could go home, well, the supreme court said they had to have speedometer to pay for the going home, how were they going to get home? well, for the longest time, people believed louis and other wealthy abolitionists paid for this, but, in fact, what happened, the abolitionists with the cooperation of the africans organized a big tour up and down the eastern sea board in which the africans would go and speak and perform their knowledge of christianity, perform their knowledge of english, perform their civilization, and, at the same time, insisted on singing their native african songs, the african side was always there, and here's the wildest part of it all -- the ma
said the west won the world not by the superiority of its idead of values or religion but by the superiority of its application of organized violence. and westerners often forget that fact. nonwesterners never do. so albright, justifiable that we can have this policy toward iraq, even though a half million died, and clinton passes the law that basically gives the opportunity for bush to go further with it when bush, after 9/11, with the invasion of iraq. so, we see a continuum. that's part of the point we're making. it's not democrats versus republicans. foreign policy is bipartisan and we see it as this -- these lines running from 1898 -- you can say 1846 with mexico -- but we're tracing from 1899 up to iraq and afghanistan and yemen, and to the current administration. >> a lot like great historian williams who argues empire is a way of life. you call your book "untold history of the united states now now and in some ways williams -- >> we're following that. that's been on -- standing on on the showereds of a lot of great historian. this is not really untold to unive
laws, or is it the view that you should protect the free exercise of religion to the greatest extent possible? we look at these cases and resolve them according to our best view of the law not in terms of a political or conservative agenda. now, there are ways of characterizing us that make a little bit more sense in terms of the work we do. some of my colleagues refer to it here fairly strictly to the text of the statute. others of my colleagues like to look more expansively to what we call the legislative history, the background of the statute or its purpose, and it makes sense to refer to them in those terms. some of us think it's very important be what the framers -- what the framers of the constitution were thinking about at the founding when they drafted it, others of us on the court take a more flexible view and think that the interpretation of the constitution should be informed by evolutionary developments. again, those sorts of things make sense. it's just easer isier, i -- easier, i think, for reporters to say that justice is liberal, and that justice is conservative, and
and personal liberty? why does the use of religion to support a social gospel and preemptive wars, both of which require of their terrance to use violence or the threat of violence, go unchallenged -- authoritarians to use of violence or the threat of violence, go unchallenged? why do we allow the government and federal reserve to disseminate false information dealing with both economics and foreign policy? why is democracy held in such high esteem, when it is the enemy of the minority, and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? why should anyone be surprised that congress has no credibility, since there is such a disconnect between what politicians say and what they do? is there any explanation for all of the deception, and happiness, fear of the future, loss of confidence in our leaders -- unhappiness, fear of the future, loss of confidence in our leaders? yes, there is. the negative perceptions are logical. identification of the problems and recognizing becausthe causew the proper changes to come more easily. we should have trust in ourselves, less in the governme
carried the signs and whatever. i thought every family thought about religion and politics every night. what brought me to it is exactly what you hear the other women here talking about. i was an advocate. i started a nonprofit social- service agency. i did teach politics and history, so i kept the interest going, but it was really katrina that put me down this path. i came back and said, we can do better than this. that is what started it. a passion for change and to be an advocate. i think all the people at this table share that. >> i hear you all talk about service -- when i was a girl, my mother was politically active, she went into the new hampshire legislative when i was 12. she would pile everybody in the station wagon and take us to a neighborhood and drop the kids off. we would run down going door-to- door with the leaflets. then she would pick us up at the other end and take us to the next three. but at the end of the day we got an ice-cream cone, so it was all worth it. [laughter] >> all of us had strong mothers. that is what we are hearing here. my mother was my hero come t
-- fundamentally, you know, has a lot to do with morality and religion and the fact that the forces, that it's become more and more acceptable in our society to have children out of wedlock. and in particular in the african-american community. and it's too bad. >> and if social science does show anything, it is the correlation between intact, two-participant families -- two-parent families and achievement. >> absolutely. and, you know, that was also politically incorrect to say for a long time. i mean, that's the reason when daniel patrick moynihan pointed out this problem in the 19 of of1960s, he got such criticism that he stopped. brave a man as he was, he had nothing to do with this issue for the rest of his career. but now i think it's becoming increasingly recognized on both sides of the aisle that as roger says, you know, you name the social pathology whether it's dropping out of school, getting into trouble with the law, you know, whatever, and there's a strong correlation between it and growing up in a home without a father. particularly for boys. >> with this gentleman right here. w
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)